[Tony Ristola]

The work looks excellent, and it seems these guys put a lot of thought into what they are doing and have a ton of respect for where they are. Not surprising. Personally I like what is being done... but...

My question is, is it truly a restoration, or is it a Modernization/Interpretation? Are they attempting to interpret/channel Donald Ross because I don't see the amount of open sand in the photos they've published as reference. I also wonder what the reaction would be if say... Fazio had done this work? Would there be cause for celebration or pause?

Or, are they expecting the Bermuda to creep back in and take over some of the sandy waste? Which is the Museum Question posted about LACC. How much will be too much, and what is the management plan? Though the sandy wastes may be dry on the surface, there is moisture in the soil, and the Bermuda will find it and just creep along.

I also wonder why they haven't gone back and redone the greens. As many have noted, these are not what they originally were, and if they have ample documentation (as none were drawn for No.2... or As-Builts made)... why not hit this area too?

[Tony Ristola]

DP

[Lou_Duran]

Tony,

Is there really such a thing as a "restoration"?  If so, to what?

It seems to me that golf courses are organic from Day 1, changing all by themselves in varying degrees due to site, weather, and climate factors, even before golfers, maintenance, managers, owners, and architects get involved.  Everything adapts; nothing stays the same.  All attempts to keep things in someone's subjective opinion of what is ideal are futile.

I think that the best we can hope for is that #2 retains or builds on those playing characterisitcs that account for its standing.  From what I know of the course, only from reading and TV, I think that it will come out well in terms of providing that level of experience in 2011.

[Tony Ristola]

Tony,

Is there really such a thing as a "restoration"?  If so, to what?

Usually it is to a certain point, time, moment. It would be interesting to have had say Ross, Billy Bell or any architect state about his work... this is the course at its best. That would provide reference for future behavior. We don't have those statements, so we are left with "interpretations and channeling".

It seems to me that golf courses are organic from Day 1, changing all by themselves in varying degrees due to site, weather, and climate factors, even before golfers, maintenance, managers, owners, and architects get involved.  Everything adapts; nothing stays the same.  All attempts to keep things in someone's subjective opinion of what is ideal are futile.

I agree up to the last line. There is an ideal, and of course it is subjective. The better informed and studied, usually the better the opinion. Of course ten different students will have ten different answers.

I think that the best we can hope for is that #2 retains or builds on those playing characterisitcs that account for its standing.  From what I know of the course, only from reading and TV, I think that it will come out well in terms of providing that level of experience in 2011.

I think so too, but isn't it being sold as a "restoration? I haven't seen photos of No.2 in this state, and I am curious about the wandering Bermuda and how it will be managed. That would be an interesting vid. Not just the now,  but the future.

All this is why I believe those involved with "restoration" should be known, to the point of having their name on the scorecard or website etc. stating it was restored by so-and-so. There should be a public record of who did what when. It is both important and valuable work and wouldn't do anything to steal thunder from the real architect. It would provide valuable historical record and accountability.

[Tom MacWood]

Tony
All very good questions, and I'd like to know the answer myself. I've added a link to an article on the project. I'm curious about the extent of the research that went into this project. The photo of the 9th green accompanying the article shows a bunker with frilly edges, IMO that looks more like C&C than Ross. I've also heard the stories about the greens, and I wonder if that is more legend than fact. There is identical picture of the 9th from Ross's day in Shackelford's 'The Golden Age' and the green doesn't look dramatically different to me.

http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/The-AntiAugusta-Syndrome/2078/Default.aspx

[Tony Ristola]

Tony
All very good questions, and I'd like to know the answer myself. I've added a link to an article on the project. I'm curious about the extent of the research that went into this project. The photo of the 9th green accompanying the article shows a bunker with frilly edges, IMO that looks more like C&C than Ross. I've also heard the stories about the greens, and I wonder if that is more legend than fact. There is identical picture of the 9th from Ross's day in Shackelford's 'The Golden Age' and the green doesn't look dramatically different to me.

http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/The-AntiAugusta-Syndrome/2078/Default.aspx

You're right, the 9th green is one that doesn't look much different, but having seen a few of the B&W photos from way back, it seems the other greens do look different. I recall an article where Pete or Alice Dye spoke about the topdressing creating an obvious edge, and at some point the edges were softened with a dozer.

Hadn't seen the new 9th... you're right, the bunker doesn't resemble anything in Shack's Golden Age book.

I had to laugh at the use of the term "sandscapes"... just as ridiculous as Tiger's... what was it... "viewscapes".

[Tony Ristola]

Bump.

[Craig Disher]

Hadn't seen the new 9th... you're right, the bunker doesn't resemble anything in Shack's Golden Age book.

I had to laugh at the use of the term "sandscapes"... just as ridiculous as Tiger's... what was it... "viewscapes".

I don't see your point. I don't have the photo that Geoff used but here's one from the 1935 PGA. It's pretty close.



To my eye, it doesn't look at all dissimilar to what the hole looked like a few weeks ago



But it sure looks a lot different than the pre-C&C version.



If C&C's bunkers are a little more "frilly" than they looked in 1935, that's small beer imo. If we were to put the late 1930s Ross version, last year's and C&C's on a scale, C&C's and Ross's would be close neighbors.

[Sean_A]

Craig

+1 on your thoughts. 

One thing which it doesn't appear (from the photo) C&C tried to regain is the false front.  It looks like C&C took the middle ground between Ross and the recent iteration.  What are youir thoughts?

Ciao

[Matthew Petersen]

I would guess that given what green speeds are today vs. what they would have been in 1935, the limited false front on the C&C version plays pretty close to what it would have been all those decades ago.

[Chris Buie]

[Steve Kline]

Craig

+1 on your thoughts. 

One thing which it doesn't appear (from the photo) C&C tried to regain is the false front.  It looks like C&C took the middle ground between Ross and the recent iteration.  What are youir thoughts?

Ciao

You may not see it in the photo but there is still a considerable false front on that green. I have hit it enough times to know.


While the 9th looks very similarr now to yesteryear the 2nd green looks much different. I'm sure Mr. Buie could find some pictures to compare.

[Ian Andrew]

I think what they have accomplished is very impressive on the 9th. The work is accurate where it should be and yet they've had the foresight to leave some of the best evolutionary aspects such as the short grass on the right.

[Craig Disher]

I don't think the 2nd green is all that different. The earlier version - here from 1935 - probably has more contour than the current green but generally they have the same footprint and call for the same strategy on the approach.





Sean - I agree with Matthew's comment and I'd suggest that if the front was cut to green height - as far down the slope as it was in the 1930s - a ball running off the front would gain enough speed that it would end up at the bottom of the hill. Previously the grass was cut to a length that held the ball on the slope and I assume that will be the case once the course opens for play.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Nit-picking details on this one is subjective.

Call the "sandscapes" whatever you'd like. In the big picture, the distinct nature of the one of the world's greatest courses has been restored; principally through removal of 30 acres of turf, which has apparently allowed for reducing the number of irrigation heads from 1,150 to 450.

There are too many positives about this project to try to find comparatively small negatives, perhaps, simply because a large number of people who participate at this site greatly admire and trumpet Coore and Crenshaw, and their work.

Congratulations, again, to all involved.

[Chris Buie]

Mr. Mingay is right, of course.  The course has taken a quantum leap forward - or backward, I suppose, in quality - so it is difficult to be critical.
The plan, this time, was not to touch the greens. The radical changes from how it has played for recent decades will take the majority a while to digest.  It is a lot for people to digest. The greens as they are have reached icon status with most players.  Asking for the greens to undergo the same level of restoration as the rest of the course would be asking too much right now.  I think that is the logic behind where we currently are.
Perhaps, if people come to really appreciate the very bold work that has been done they will in the future take the greens back as well.  That could be a serious challenge with todays green speeds - especially during the U.S. Open. I'm not sure they would be possible to play at 13 on the stimp.  They would have to slow the greens down if they put them back as they were.  Slower green speeds would be another challenging aspect for golfers to digest.  Maybe in the future.
As requested by scratch golfer Steve Kline here is the 2nd green.  




Those photos are courtesy of the Tufts Archives.

[Steve Kline]

The 2nd green definitely looks different to me. Today's green has the large front right knob and a is virtually a large flat table otherwise with falloffs all around. The old green, as seen in the last picture Chris posted, still has the large front right know but it appears that the center of the green where the caddy is standing is the low point of the green. Perhaps the top dressing hasn't added to the outer edges of the greens, raising the sides and creating the mounds, but rather the middle of the greens.

Either way, I'm not convinced they should attempt to restore the greens. As an earlier posted said they have reached icon status in their current form. The will vastly superior to what is has been for decades with the recent renovation without touching the greens. And, as long as the strategy and playing characteristics are still generally the same why spend the money to restore the greens and shut the course down again?

[Mike_Young]

I like what has been done...will it stay that way?...can the average resort guest play it?...and will they like hitting out of the waste areas?....I don't think so...BUT if it helps market the resort enough to bring in the numbers then it will remain for awhile....I really don't feel the mases like this stuff as much as we do...

[Philippe Binette]

I have a name for what C&C are doing at Pinehurst no 2





GREAT WORK.

[Carl Rogers]

This and other "restoration" threads reinforce the need to document golf course design at certain points in time so that they can accurately be "restored" without the usual guessing.  These fuzzy black and white photos are historically and aesthetically interesting but strike me as otherwise hopelessly inadequate to the task of accurate "restoration".

How does one judge the quality of a "restoration" without an established clear baseline of what was once there? 

I am befuddled by the casual approach or non-existent attitude that many clubs have toward their course.

All kinds of questions arise if certain holes or elements of certain holes are deemed to require improvements from the "original"?

[Tony Ristola]

Nit-picking details on this one is subjective.

Call the "sandscapes" whatever you'd like. In the big picture, the distinct nature of the one of the world's greatest courses has been restored; principally through removal of 30 acres of turf, which has apparently allowed for reducing the number of irrigation heads from 1,150 to 450.

There are too many positives about this project to try to find comparatively small negatives, perhaps, simply because a large number of people who participate at this site greatly admire and trumpet Coore and Crenshaw, and their work.

Congratulations, again, to all involved.

When you claim to "restore" something, then it is a lot about "nitpicking". It's a tremndous amount of "nitpicking". It's all about "nitpicking". Or perhaps the work at Colt's venues Ian has harped about is OK? Why nitpick? Or is it OK for Ian to go take some of Thompson's work and add frillies, and generally mess about with the bunker style. Why not... now that nitpicking on "restoration" of not just classic courses, but historic works is seen as trivial? (Just went through a ton of Fazio threads... I didn't see any nitpicking there... LOL.)

I did say I liked the work, believe they put thought into it, but did not know if this could be classified as a "restoration". I see the spirit, but not the precision. I see a new road. Future maintenance directives could bring it into that "restoration" realm, because I do not see that amount of open sand in any photos, nor have I seen Ross bunkers look like some that are presented on the website. But who's nitpicking?

Yes Jeff, there are many who like their work, me included, but it doesn't preclude them from discussing their work, just as it hasn't for Gil Hanse at MPCC or Fazio. In fact, I think people should look past the labels and actually look at it from the narrow focus of "restoration" and ask... is it? Put on your Fazio caps if need be and deep down tell yourself the truth. If this was Fazio who had done this...

And they could have turned off all the excess sprinklers, let the Bermuda croak, put in a fraction of the sand, and it would have been more reflective of the course as seen in the photos of yesteryear. Unless of course, there's a batch I haven't seen, where there are frillies and that much open sand. Again... perhaps the maintenance directives are to allow the Bermuda to creep. I don't know. Do you?

As for sandscapes... that could be nitpicking... I'll agree, but that's trivial in the big picture of this discussion. The term did remind me of the stomach turning viewscapes Tiger was spitting out ad nauseum. It turns my stomach writing it. Tiger... they're views man. And they're not sandscapes, but waste areas or waste bunkers or areas of open sand.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()